I disagree. It's not as though MS introduced a subscription after the 360 was marketed. XBL was available for the XBox 1 and it was implicit in the marketing of the 360 that subscription to XBL was required to play online. They even gave you a trial membership!
The cost involved in maintaining XBL, which is pretty slick IMHO, must be massive and that cost must be generated from somewhere. Not the consoles or the games as those might stop selling or might not cover the cost. Subscription all the way.
There is one thing worth mentioning: the 360 is a games console and you can play games on it without an internet connection. My friend's son had a 360 about 6 years ago and it has never been connected to the net. Personally, I think this is a waste as multiplayer gaming is 'what it's all about' but he seemed happy enough.
The online aspect is available by subscription and apps, netflix, lovefilm, whatever are additions to that subscription service. You are saying that you want those additions for free and not have to pay for the multiplayer content - are you the sort of person that refuses to pay for a 'buy one, get one free' offer as you only want the free one?
That is an interesting point. I have never been one to buy on the first day but then I never sell on any of my games.
I do recognise that there are plenty of people who purchase a game and sell it on after days/weeks/months. If cost and resale value is a big consideration, the market will reflect one-key (wonky - geddit?) DRM almost immediately.
Of course, it could be that MS plans to lower the retail prices considerably to reflect the cast-iron DRM? I mean, MS just wants it's fair share of profit, it doesn't want to rape the customer-base does it?
Well if my claim is unverifiable then so is yours at which point we are back to square one.
I wasn't saying you were lying but I was demonstrating that your experience is not a fair representation of society. By saying that my claim is unverifiable suggests that you are unwilling to believe me which leads to the conclusion that you have made up your mind and that mind is not for changing. This approach is similar to a person with an unimpeachable religious faith which normally leads to incarceration on mental health grounds or criminal charges for sexual assault on a minor (unless you are Catholic in which case you get a promotion).
You claim to have an active social life but 'active social life' is subjective. Your version might sound relatively mundane to me. As for meeting new people "all time", whoop dee doo, are you a ticket salesman?
My opinion, which you will claim means nothing to you, is that you are an iphone zealot with no interest in comparisons and you dislike those who disagree with you no matter how valid their views, rather than welcome those competing views . You are entitled to your own opinion but you can be a little less...mental...when expressing it.
Thank you for reading and be careful with the self-harm when you are composing your response.
I agree with you up to a point. The iphone works because it is tied down which is what Apple wanted to achieve. Take away software control and you introduce deficiencies - a situation which runs contrary to Apple's philosophy.
However, what some people want is an option to "Allow installation of apps from sources other than the Apple store" under "Security > Unknown Sources" which is what android devices have.
I don't think this is a large concession and Apple could put up warning messages such as "allowing installation of unsigned apps could damage your phone and invalidate your warranty" which would get Apple off the hook. Further, you could have the phone send a message back to Apple to issue an authorisation code to allow the unlock to make doubly sure that the user knew what they were getting into.
Of course, Apple is still within its rights to say "we designed it and you agreed to the terms and conditions. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have bought it" but they could increase their user-base and boost innovation by allowing the chosen few to go off the beaten path. Brave new world and all that...
Really? My brother had an iphone then swapped to Android. I asked him his thoughts and he said "the screen and touch sensitivity is better on the iphone" but other than that he was happy with the Android device (an HTC Desire HD).
Now that you have heard of a person going from iphone to Android and not going back, will you reflect on your errors and possibly the approach that you adopt in life? Probably not...
Android benefits from being on a myriad of devices, high and low spec. However, there is not so much 'focus' on the underlying platform or future support.
Apple has plenty of focus but relies upon one platform (I'm lumping the iPad and iPhone in together) which is updated infrequently. This means that they may well lead the market when an update comes out but only for a short time as other platforms catch up then overtake.
Windows 8 looked like a non-starter but has done pretty well all things considered. I am impressed with the UI but it's not for me. It's a love it or hate it OS which is the same as Android and Apple.
Blackberry has its fans but direct competition is too late and too risky. Focusing on key functionality and deliberately leaving out non-business frippery should be their aim. One of the main problems with BB was the lack of ability to use the Web as the screen was too small and the wi-fi flakey.
So, a larger screen (4 inch?), a basic camera, working wifi with a schedule for peak and off peak, the ability to view MS office and OSS documents as standard, a suite of business oriented apps, a physical keyboard and a battery that last 2 days and you have a winner.
You have missed the point somewhat. The point is that nurses are purportedly a greater risk to patients if they have not received immunisation.
Nobody cares if the nurses contract flu per se, they just don't want them near the patients if they are contagious and the best way to do that is to avoid the contagion in the first place.
Whether the immunisation works or not is certainly an issue but for the sake of good practice I would say the burden of proof should be with the nurses to prove that the immunisation *doesn't* work rather than demand proof that is does work.
There really is no point. She should register her own domain that doesn't use her name and promote that instead. With thoughtful use of metadata any searches will rank the author's page ahead of the ex's pages.
In my office if you ask most people what version of Windows/Word/Outlook they have, they usually say "I don't know". To them Win XP and 7 look the same and I would guess that Win 7 and 8 also look the same.
I don't know what religion you're talking about, but it isn't Christianity. They'll ask for a tithe, they'll ask for charity donations (my church is collecting right now to feed some 80 poor families this Christmas, when the kids who normally get food at school are off of school), but none I've heard of demand it, and I wouldn't set foot in such a church..
So Christianity is the correct religion to choose is it? That's funny because people from other religions (with other Gods) say the same. Someone is lying/misguided. Can the correct God please stand up and clarify the position?
Come to think of it, people from other religions are as convinced as you about their religion - only one can be right and the others would be wrong. I am guessing that you believe the others are wrong which would be rather dismissive don't you think?
If you are correct how come your God doesn't throw out some clues to entice people away from their 'duff' religions? Won't they go to purgatory or worse by supporting the wrong team? Even if they did so unquestioningly and innocently due to their upbringing?
As for financial incentives I was primarily referring to Scientology and Jehovah's Witnesses but there are other 'pushy' religions too. Catholicism for instance which encourages donations to the Church (the Vatican is a swine to heat in the Winter) flies under the radar in this respect in light of the 'sex with kids' thing which you may have heard of..
Nope, every preacher I've heard does his best to explain what the bible says and what it means.
Well, you've been lucky then. I recall a religious education lesson at school when I was admonished for asking too many questions. The 'guest' religious person (I am unsure of his status) complained to my R.E. teacher who accused me of being rude. I merely asked the guest whether it was possible that the bible was a story which people chose to add to over a lengthy period of time and was it plausible that it is not a religious text at all? I was 14 at the time and thought it was a reasonable question.
The guest told me to stop being disrespectful and to shut up. Cripes, with such a minor level of scrutiny, I guess God was unlikely to choose him for lead marketing..
On the subject of interpretation not one Christian I have met can explain their homophobia in contrast to their love all of people. You might not be homophobic in which case I applaud you.
Nope, that neither, and I've visited lots of Christina churches of many denominations in my sixty years.
Brilliant. So, there are people who take the old testament as, well, 'gospel'? That's actually quite worrying. Noah for instance. I mean...really?
He does, but don't expect him to talk to you when you obviously are unwilling to listen. People believe in God because God has revealed himself to them. Sorry you haven't been so lucky.
That's a circular argument isn't it? If you believe without question God doesn't have to talk to you as you have utter faith that he can if he wants to.
However, if you have any doubt then you're not trying hard enough? That's the same as a child saying "the last one to the other side of the park smells of poo" and running off. Being the last doesn't mean you smell, it's a false consequence of being the last.
My view is that utter faith involves a release of the thought process, doubt is normal and hearing God is probably a psychotic episode. I don't mean to be rude - this is what I believe - which is probably as fantastical to you as the Scientologists belief about aliens and volcanoes or the Mormons with their stone tablets which they gave back to God for safekeeping...
I don't believe in God therefore I am unwilling to listen? Give me a break.... How about there is noone there? I would guess that you would dismiss this view as bunkum but by choosing to believe your own v
Call me a cynic but when a person feels that there is something 'missing' from their life, it amazes me how many 'religions' will offer to show the way for a 'small fee'. The small fee will of course buy a book or pamphlet with the 'evidence' of which you speak.
"yes, it's a bit sketchy but it's a test you see...you need faith to really understand it and embrace it without question...Oh, and don't worry about the old testament*, it doesn't really apply"
*I'm sure non-Christian religions are as bad but I have no empirical proof of this.
If there is a god, surely s/he will make contact directly rather than allow a referral fee to be paid. Is it a bandwidth issue or something?
The UK Gov actually has the Government Gateway which is a secure system that was meant to be all encompassing.
Originally there was a large budget approved to set up a skeleton network which would eventually be extended to replace the many legacy systems in the NHS and all government departments. I seem to recall that there was a mirrored multi-petabyte storage array for records to begin with.
However, part way through the implementation someone pulled the plug and left a partly implemented system which deals with income tax returns and a few benefits such as disability living allowance and child benefit. None of the NHS departments are on the system.
The plug appears to have been pulled as whilst the budget was approved, a government minister was charged with the task of saving money and this was done by canning the project part way through is the easiest way.
e.g. get a budget for £50 million > spend £5 million > can the project > save £45 million > result! The government gateway was what was left of the project which is some distance from the original goal.
What is needed is a live 'de-shitinator' disc which will allow you to get rid of the bloat in one fell swoop. At least it should be an option - a download link perhaps?
Where there is an flaw in tax law, it will eventually be written out and that loophole closed. Google has avoided tax thus far but now is the time to pay up and for that to occur the law needs to be changed.
Of course, Google isn't the only entity using such tactics - it is the extent of the avoidance that is causing uproar. Every multinational company will have similar tax plans in place (or their accountants atrn't doing their jobs properly) and they will all be concerned about any tax developments.
Remember, it's not a Google Tax people want, it is a prevention of tax avoidance which might affect the decision of of large companies to move into or out of the countries where they have a physical presence. Catastrophic financial consequences may well occur.
Revision of tax law is not the work of a moment...
Perhaps if we could set our own content filters this would solve the problem? I'm uncomfortable with others deciding whose nipples I can and can't see.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple will claim that they are squares with the corners filed off...
I disagree. It's not as though MS introduced a subscription after the 360 was marketed. XBL was available for the XBox 1 and it was implicit in the marketing of the 360 that subscription to XBL was required to play online. They even gave you a trial membership!
The cost involved in maintaining XBL, which is pretty slick IMHO, must be massive and that cost must be generated from somewhere. Not the consoles or the games as those might stop selling or might not cover the cost. Subscription all the way.
There is one thing worth mentioning: the 360 is a games console and you can play games on it without an internet connection. My friend's son had a 360 about 6 years ago and it has never been connected to the net. Personally, I think this is a waste as multiplayer gaming is 'what it's all about' but he seemed happy enough.
The online aspect is available by subscription and apps, netflix, lovefilm, whatever are additions to that subscription service. You are saying that you want those additions for free and not have to pay for the multiplayer content - are you the sort of person that refuses to pay for a 'buy one, get one free' offer as you only want the free one?
That is an interesting point. I have never been one to buy on the first day but then I never sell on any of my games.
I do recognise that there are plenty of people who purchase a game and sell it on after days/weeks/months. If cost and resale value is a big consideration, the market will reflect one-key (wonky - geddit?) DRM almost immediately.
Of course, it could be that MS plans to lower the retail prices considerably to reflect the cast-iron DRM? I mean, MS just wants it's fair share of profit, it doesn't want to rape the customer-base does it?
Seems that AV software is a prescription worse than the disease.
I always though McAfee was akin to Thalidomide in that respect. It would appear that Kapersky is cut from the same cloth...
Is Norton Security Suite (or whatever it is/was called) still the ultimate cyanide pill for a well-configured system?
Yes but these dice were *3D*, can you imagine such a thing? 3D gaming dice - the possibilities!
Well if my claim is unverifiable then so is yours at which point we are back to square one.
I wasn't saying you were lying but I was demonstrating that your experience is not a fair representation of society. By saying that my claim is unverifiable suggests that you are unwilling to believe me which leads to the conclusion that you have made up your mind and that mind is not for changing. This approach is similar to a person with an unimpeachable religious faith which normally leads to incarceration on mental health grounds or criminal charges for sexual assault on a minor (unless you are Catholic in which case you get a promotion).
You claim to have an active social life but 'active social life' is subjective. Your version might sound relatively mundane to me. As for meeting new people "all time", whoop dee doo, are you a ticket salesman?
My opinion, which you will claim means nothing to you, is that you are an iphone zealot with no interest in comparisons and you dislike those who disagree with you no matter how valid their views, rather than welcome those competing views . You are entitled to your own opinion but you can be a little less...mental...when expressing it.
Thank you for reading and be careful with the self-harm when you are composing your response.
I agree with you up to a point. The iphone works because it is tied down which is what Apple wanted to achieve. Take away software control and you introduce deficiencies - a situation which runs contrary to Apple's philosophy.
However, what some people want is an option to "Allow installation of apps from sources other than the Apple store" under "Security > Unknown Sources" which is what android devices have.
I don't think this is a large concession and Apple could put up warning messages such as "allowing installation of unsigned apps could damage your phone and invalidate your warranty" which would get Apple off the hook. Further, you could have the phone send a message back to Apple to issue an authorisation code to allow the unlock to make doubly sure that the user knew what they were getting into.
Of course, Apple is still within its rights to say "we designed it and you agreed to the terms and conditions. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have bought it" but they could increase their user-base and boost innovation by allowing the chosen few to go off the beaten path. Brave new world and all that...
Really? My brother had an iphone then swapped to Android. I asked him his thoughts and he said "the screen and touch sensitivity is better on the iphone" but other than that he was happy with the Android device (an HTC Desire HD).
Now that you have heard of a person going from iphone to Android and not going back, will you reflect on your errors and possibly the approach that you adopt in life? Probably not...
Android benefits from being on a myriad of devices, high and low spec. However, there is not so much 'focus' on the underlying platform or future support.
Apple has plenty of focus but relies upon one platform (I'm lumping the iPad and iPhone in together) which is updated infrequently. This means that they may well lead the market when an update comes out but only for a short time as other platforms catch up then overtake.
Windows 8 looked like a non-starter but has done pretty well all things considered. I am impressed with the UI but it's not for me. It's a love it or hate it OS which is the same as Android and Apple.
Blackberry has its fans but direct competition is too late and too risky. Focusing on key functionality and deliberately leaving out non-business frippery should be their aim. One of the main problems with BB was the lack of ability to use the Web as the screen was too small and the wi-fi flakey. So, a larger screen (4 inch?), a basic camera, working wifi with a schedule for peak and off peak, the ability to view MS office and OSS documents as standard, a suite of business oriented apps, a physical keyboard and a battery that last 2 days and you have a winner.
It is akin to a boxer and a pugilist street fighter. Whilst damage is caused to the opponent, it is fine as long as there are rules.
The US is the boxer and their opponent is the pugilist which is why the US will always get support.
The UN plays the part of the referee but the referee doesn't always see the low blows...
You have missed the point somewhat. The point is that nurses are purportedly a greater risk to patients if they have not received immunisation.
Nobody cares if the nurses contract flu per se, they just don't want them near the patients if they are contagious and the best way to do that is to avoid the contagion in the first place.
Whether the immunisation works or not is certainly an issue but for the sake of good practice I would say the burden of proof should be with the nurses to prove that the immunisation *doesn't* work rather than demand proof that is does work.
or create a website to refute his claims
There really is no point. She should register her own domain that doesn't use her name and promote that instead. With thoughtful use of metadata any searches will rank the author's page ahead of the ex's pages.
ummm....no it doesn't.
+1
In my office if you ask most people what version of Windows/Word/Outlook they have, they usually say "I don't know". To them Win XP and 7 look the same and I would guess that Win 7 and 8 also look the same.
I don't think he was demanding a change was he? Just saying that he hated it.
Feedback is a useful tool for service providers - even when those services are free.
I don't know what religion you're talking about, but it isn't Christianity. They'll ask for a tithe, they'll ask for charity donations (my church is collecting right now to feed some 80 poor families this Christmas, when the kids who normally get food at school are off of school), but none I've heard of demand it, and I wouldn't set foot in such a church..
So Christianity is the correct religion to choose is it? That's funny because people from other religions (with other Gods) say the same. Someone is lying/misguided. Can the correct God please stand up and clarify the position?
Come to think of it, people from other religions are as convinced as you about their religion - only one can be right and the others would be wrong. I am guessing that you believe the others are wrong which would be rather dismissive don't you think?
If you are correct how come your God doesn't throw out some clues to entice people away from their 'duff' religions? Won't they go to purgatory or worse by supporting the wrong team? Even if they did so unquestioningly and innocently due to their upbringing?
As for financial incentives I was primarily referring to Scientology and Jehovah's Witnesses but there are other 'pushy' religions too. Catholicism for instance which encourages donations to the Church (the Vatican is a swine to heat in the Winter) flies under the radar in this respect in light of the 'sex with kids' thing which you may have heard of..
Nope, every preacher I've heard does his best to explain what the bible says and what it means.
Well, you've been lucky then. I recall a religious education lesson at school when I was admonished for asking too many questions. The 'guest' religious person (I am unsure of his status) complained to my R.E. teacher who accused me of being rude. I merely asked the guest whether it was possible that the bible was a story which people chose to add to over a lengthy period of time and was it plausible that it is not a religious text at all? I was 14 at the time and thought it was a reasonable question.
The guest told me to stop being disrespectful and to shut up. Cripes, with such a minor level of scrutiny, I guess God was unlikely to choose him for lead marketing..
On the subject of interpretation not one Christian I have met can explain their homophobia in contrast to their love all of people. You might not be homophobic in which case I applaud you.
Nope, that neither, and I've visited lots of Christina churches of many denominations in my sixty years.
Brilliant. So, there are people who take the old testament as, well, 'gospel'? That's actually quite worrying. Noah for instance. I mean...really?
He does, but don't expect him to talk to you when you obviously are unwilling to listen. People believe in God because God has revealed himself to them. Sorry you haven't been so lucky.
That's a circular argument isn't it? If you believe without question God doesn't have to talk to you as you have utter faith that he can if he wants to.
However, if you have any doubt then you're not trying hard enough? That's the same as a child saying "the last one to the other side of the park smells of poo" and running off. Being the last doesn't mean you smell, it's a false consequence of being the last.
My view is that utter faith involves a release of the thought process, doubt is normal and hearing God is probably a psychotic episode. I don't mean to be rude - this is what I believe - which is probably as fantastical to you as the Scientologists belief about aliens and volcanoes or the Mormons with their stone tablets which they gave back to God for safekeeping...
I don't believe in God therefore I am unwilling to listen? Give me a break.... How about there is noone there? I would guess that you would dismiss this view as bunkum but by choosing to believe your own v
Call me a cynic but when a person feels that there is something 'missing' from their life, it amazes me how many 'religions' will offer to show the way for a 'small fee'. The small fee will of course buy a book or pamphlet with the 'evidence' of which you speak.
"yes, it's a bit sketchy but it's a test you see...you need faith to really understand it and embrace it without question...Oh, and don't worry about the old testament*, it doesn't really apply"
*I'm sure non-Christian religions are as bad but I have no empirical proof of this.
If there is a god, surely s/he will make contact directly rather than allow a referral fee to be paid. Is it a bandwidth issue or something?
The UK Gov actually has the Government Gateway which is a secure system that was meant to be all encompassing.
Originally there was a large budget approved to set up a skeleton network which would eventually be extended to replace the many legacy systems in the NHS and all government departments. I seem to recall that there was a mirrored multi-petabyte storage array for records to begin with.
However, part way through the implementation someone pulled the plug and left a partly implemented system which deals with income tax returns and a few benefits such as disability living allowance and child benefit. None of the NHS departments are on the system.
The plug appears to have been pulled as whilst the budget was approved, a government minister was charged with the task of saving money and this was done by canning the project part way through is the easiest way.
e.g. get a budget for £50 million > spend £5 million > can the project > save £45 million > result! The government gateway was what was left of the project which is some distance from the original goal.
Lies, damned lies and statistics... [sigh]
He should just provide a link and they could download it to save the trouble of travelling...
What is needed is a live 'de-shitinator' disc which will allow you to get rid of the bloat in one fell swoop. At least it should be an option - a download link perhaps?
Quite right.
Where there is an flaw in tax law, it will eventually be written out and that loophole closed. Google has avoided tax thus far but now is the time to pay up and for that to occur the law needs to be changed.
Of course, Google isn't the only entity using such tactics - it is the extent of the avoidance that is causing uproar. Every multinational company will have similar tax plans in place (or their accountants atrn't doing their jobs properly) and they will all be concerned about any tax developments.
Remember, it's not a Google Tax people want, it is a prevention of tax avoidance which might affect the decision of of large companies to move into or out of the countries where they have a physical presence. Catastrophic financial consequences may well occur.
Revision of tax law is not the work of a moment...
Perhaps if we could set our own content filters this would solve the problem? I'm uncomfortable with others deciding whose nipples I can and can't see.
It's it an offence to threaten the US president isn't it? So, free speech apart from that bit?
I'm not mocking you, just curious what you think of the distinction I make (unless the offence is an urban myth which is possible).
Twoppers?
Surely a corrupt police officer will just close their eyes to prevent their nefarious acts from being recorded?